9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 851X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to the land purchased. It was further explained that, since the vendors failed to carry out their commitments, no additional amount was paid. We do not find this reason submitted by the assessee to be genuine which is neither based on any evidence or admissions of the vendors. Hence, we do not find any merit in the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for deleting the penalty. It is apparent from the transaction that the assessee has paid on-money of ₹ 79,32,020/-. The assessee has not come out with any reasonable explanation with cogent evidence to prove his case otherwise. Hence, it is evident from the transaction that additional investment made by the assessee amounting to ₹ 79,32,020/- has been conceal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chayat, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur Dist., during the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the assessment was reopened by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act on 28.01.2010 and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 28.12.2010, wherein the learned Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 79,32,016/- under section 69 of the Act being the difference in sale consideration disclosed in the return of income/sale deed and the actual sale consideration paid. Subsequently penalty proceedings were also initiated. During the course of search seizure operation under section 132 of the Act on 10.01.2008 in the residential premises of Mr. Adhikesavalu Reddy, who is one of the Directors of the assessee compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30.10.2013) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled after considering the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) and held that the question would be whether the assessee had offered an explanation for concealment of particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income and the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) raises a presumption of concealment and if a difference is noticed by the AO between the reported and the assessed income, the burden was then on the assessee to show otherwise by cogent and reliable evidence and when the initial onus placed by the Explanation had been discharged by the assessee, the onus shifts to the Revenue to show . that the amount in question constituted the income and not otherwise. 5.2. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmitments for certain additional services such as enabling the purchase of an additional piece of land appurtenant to the subject land, which the vendors failed to carry out and hence no additional amount was actually paid over and above what was shown in the registered deed, the onus cast upon the assessee had been discharged by the assessee. 5.4. It has also been observed in the decision in the case of MAK Data (P) Ltd. cited supra that if the Department did not agree with the explanation given by the assessee as mentioned above, then the onus was on the Department to prove that there was concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5.5. There is again considerable merit in the AR's contention that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he sale agreement dated 15.3.2004 that the sale consideration agreed to be paid was ₹ 1,28,26,000/-. Therefore, it was apparent that the assessee would have paid on-money of ₹ 79,32,020/- because the registered sale deed reflected only payment of ₹ 49,53,978/- . From these facts it is clear that the assessee has made investment beyond that was disclosed in the return of income and hence the penalty levied by the learned Assessing Officer may be confirmed. 5. Learned Authorized Representative on the other hand, relied on the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and argued in support of the same. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials available on record. From th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
